35 U.S.C. § 27
Revival of applications; reinstatement of reexamination proceedings
The Director may establish procedures, including the requirement for payment of the fee specified in section 41(a)(7), to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for patent, accept an unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing each patent, or accept an unintentionally delayed response by the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, upon petition by the applicant for patent or patent owner.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: SB IP Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023).
SB IP Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023). “Vivint counters this, claiming that the Court can deem the revival inoperable since the USPTO exceeded its statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 27 (Dkt. #229 at pp. 15–16; Dkt.”
Glycobiosciences, Inc. v. Innocutis Holdings, LLC (D.D.C. 2015). “112-211 § 203(b)(2), reprinted at 35 U.S.C. § 27 note (2012) (emphasis added) (hereinafter “litigation exception”).”
Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (D. Del. 2022). “1995) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 27 (e)(2)(A)). Noratech’s paragraph IV certification and Novartis’s good faith belief that Noratech’s ANDA Products contained sacubitril and valsartan in a form that could potentially convert to the claimed co- crystalline form of sacubitril and…”
Nite Glow Indus. Inc. v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co. (D.N.J. 2020). “See 35 U.S.C. § 27 ; see also MPEP 711.03(c) at II.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.